Page 1052 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
around the site with them. Following the adjournment I also requested that a meeting be held between resident representatives and officials from the planning directorate to clarify some technical details. This meeting was held on March 17, and a number of technical issues were discussed in some detail. I subsequently met with the Red Hill resident representatives to follow up that discussion and reflect on what clarification had been made and where there were still points of disagreement.
I have listened to those concerns very carefully and I have taken them up with Minister Gentleman. I am pleased that significant progress has been made in making adjustments to the variation to the territory plan. Of course, prior to the current phase in the Assembly after the initial public consultation, most notably, there had already been a reduction in the maximum height of some of the buildings on the site from six storeys in the original proposal to four storeys in the territory plan variation that was tabled by Minister Gentleman. We know the height of the buildings was perhaps the most significant concern in the community, and I think that early change from Minister Gentleman reflected the community concerns.
I note that there are already quite a few three-storey buildings on the site, and I believe an additional storey in parts of the site will not be too much of a dramatic change, particularly given the size of the site and some subsequent points that I will come to. That goes to the fact that, in discussions with Minister Gentleman, I suggested that the desired character statement be strengthened to reflect not only some character statements that were in the original documentation that went out to consultation but also some additional points that had come through in discussions I had had with the community. I will come back to those technical clarifications shortly, including issues around basements and overshadowing.
If we reflect on what is currently at the site, I think it is fair to say that many of the buildings are in poor condition, and the Greens support the renewal of the ACT’s public housing stock. Much of it is expensive to maintain, it is inefficient in terms of energy use and, therefore, it is expensive to heat and cool for the tenants. I believe our public housing tenants should be offered better quality accommodation than is available in some of the sites across the city where, through age, perhaps original design, perhaps through inadequate maintenance over the years and certainly through the options for improved design, we can do a better job for our public housing tenants.
The ACT Greens, of course, have consistently advocated for a long-term vision for our city, an environmentally sustainable vision that maps out the future of our city that is livable, well connected and prepared for the future challenges of climate change, population growth and energy security. The Greens support urban infill developments rather than continuously expanding this city on the edges, but we want to ensure that that urban infill is of high quality, with well-designed, energy-efficient buildings and well-landscaped public open spaces and streetscapes.
The proposed redevelopment of the public housing at Red Hill provides one such opportunity, I believe. It provides a unique opportunity, being a large site that is close to shops, schools and other facilities. I believe an increased number of residents in the area will help the viability of the local shops, which the Greens see as a vital part of the hub of our community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video